Imo, I find it absolutely ridiculous to call something just barely 10 years old retro. Honestly, I don't even find stuff like Dreamcast, XBOX, PS2, etc. retro either...

dr_st wrote:

Precisely. It's not just nVidia. Basically almost all major vendors dropped support a while ago. For major vendors, every OS SKU to target is extra support overhead, even if the software is 100% identical. It's simply not an effective allocation of resources given the low number of users who would benefit from it.

But what about the Linux market share? Not a whole lot of people run Linux for the desktop yet there's Steam and frequent GPU driver updates.

Though on topic, I don't think Vista is "Retro"... If anything Windows 3.1 and below are retro.

DracoNihil wrote:

But what about the Linux market share? Not a whole lot of people run Linux for the desktop yet there's Steam and frequent GPU driver updates.

For nVidia, linux is their ticket into the *NIX-world (they also support Solaris and FreeBSD, even less of a user base than linux).
Not necessarily for gaming, but for professional usage such as CAD/CAM/CAE and high-performance computing, supporting *NIX alongside Windows is apparently lucrative enough (remember, nVidia also builds non-gaming oriented GPUs, including ones specialized for virtualization, HPC or pro graphics, the Grid, Tesla and Quadro product lines).

Steam, I think Valve was just afraid that Windows 8/10 with the new Windows Store model might push Steam into irrelevance, so linux is their 'escape route'. Gabe Newell spread a lot of FUD about it at the time, both about how bad Windows would be for the future of gaming, and how good linux (especially their own SteamOS) would be.
In reality, Windows is still king, and linux is still irrelevant for Steam/gaming, a few years later. Nothing happened really, and I don't think it ever will.

Windows Vista is the best looking release Microsoft has done in my eyes. Zune Software as well. I feel that Windows 8 and Windows 10 lost a lot of the personality from that era.

candle_86 wrote:

Firefox still supports it, but more companies moved on shortly after XP ended, vista did as well.

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/softwar … s-xp-and-vista/

Firefox no longer supports XP and Vista as well.

Scali wrote:

For nVidia, linux is their ticket into the *NIX-world (they also support Solaris and FreeBSD, even less of a user base than linu […]
Show full quote

DracoNihil wrote:

But what about the Linux market share? Not a whole lot of people run Linux for the desktop yet there's Steam and frequent GPU driver updates.

For nVidia, linux is their ticket into the *NIX-world (they also support Solaris and FreeBSD, even less of a user base than linux).
Not necessarily for gaming, but for professional usage such as CAD/CAM/CAE and high-performance computing, supporting *NIX alongside Windows is apparently lucrative enough (remember, nVidia also builds non-gaming oriented GPUs, including ones specialized for virtualization, HPC or pro graphics, the Grid, Tesla and Quadro product lines).

Steam, I think Valve was just afraid that Windows 8/10 with the new Windows Store model might push Steam into irrelevance, so linux is their 'escape route'. Gabe Newell spread a lot of FUD about it at the time, both about how bad Windows would be for the future of gaming, and how good linux (especially their own SteamOS) would be.
In reality, Windows is still king, and linux is still irrelevant for Steam/gaming, a few years later. Nothing happened really, and I don't think it ever will.

Well, the bolded part is an overstatement certainly, possibly even hyperbole.

SteamOS was never going to be a thing, that's not how Linux works - Valve did not quite get Linux and it was stillborn the day it was announced.

However, what really spurred things forward was a Linux Steam client. This is more important than you downplay - it has brought a marketplace to Linux where AAA titles are readily accessible and just work with one click installs.

And they DO work. Thanks to Valve's support of the OS through porting their client over, GPU driver development has gained significant momentum. AMD's drivers are in much better shape than they were before Steam(OS) and the development of open source drivers is just plain amazing.

If I can use my first generation i5 laptop at home with Linux Mint and install Steam on it and play videogames on the go with it (and I can, believe me) then you can not honestly say "Nothing happened." A lot of things happened, and they still are happening.

Today, Linux is no less relevant to gaming than MacOS. That is something.

DracoNihil wrote:

But what about the Linux market share? Not a whole lot of people run Linux for the desktop yet there's Steam and frequent GPU driver updates.

Probably more people run some flavor of Linux than Vista at this point.

Furthermore, Linux is not just one OS, but a whole family. As such, it is an important checkbox item. Think of it this way - divide the users into Linux and Windows users. If you don't support Linux - you lose 100% of the Linux users. If you don't support Vista - well, you only lose like 1-2% of the Windows users. And those users are much more likely to upgrade to Win7 or later than Linux users to switch everything they know and like and move to Windows.

BTW, within the Linux support, it is common for vendors to formally support only certain distributions, or specific kernel versions. So they will be testing only against it, and if you want something else - support is not guaranteed.

darkNiGHTS wrote:

Firefox no longer supports XP and Vista as well.

Pale Moon still supports Vista, though. And it will, for quite some time, at least until the tools they use can no longer build for Vista. However, even Pale Moon does not support XP That's because XP and Vista really are more different than Vista an Win7.

Anything that runs on Win7 could easily run on Vista, except Microsoft deliberately chose not to enable certain frameworks on Vista. If your software does not rely on them (and most software does not), the only reason to ditch Vista support is to reduce validation overhead, which is a big ticket for major vendors, but not so much for smaller vendors (e.g. Pale Moon developers).

appiah4 wrote:

If I can use my first generation i5 laptop at home with Linux Mint and install Steam on it and play videogames on the go with it (and I can, believe me) then you can not honestly say "Nothing happened." A lot of things happened, and they still are happening.

In the absolute sense perhaps.
But relative to Windows, the position of linux hasn't really changed.
Yes, there's always progress, we're not still gaming on C64 and NES.
So even gaming on linux improves over time.
But linux is still trailing behind Windows both in terms of performance/features and in actual number of titles.
The balance remains the same.

Scali wrote:

In the absolute sense perhaps. But relative to Windows, the position of linux hasn't really changed. Yes, there's always progres […]
Show full quote

appiah4 wrote:

If I can use my first generation i5 laptop at home with Linux Mint and install Steam on it and play videogames on the go with it (and I can, believe me) then you can not honestly say "Nothing happened." A lot of things happened, and they still are happening.

In the absolute sense perhaps.
But relative to Windows, the position of linux hasn't really changed.
Yes, there's always progress, we're not still gaming on C64 and NES.
So even gaming on linux improves over time.
But linux is still trailing behind Windows both in terms of performance/features and in actual number of titles.
The balance remains the same.

I don't know how you can say this.

Compare the number of worthwhile games available on Linux in 2013 were about the number of fingers and toes on your body. Today it is well 3,000 and growing.

I mean, look at this graph.
Or these stats.

These are proofs of progress. They are also proofs that games are being developed and released for Linux at a stable pace, and being bought by gamers at a growing demand. So it was not just a spur of initial wrapper ports to Linux and a case of initial demand and subsequent die-off.

The balance of games available on Linux vs Windows has changed. Significantly so. Linux is no longer insignificant for gaming. Maybe for you, and I respect that. But not for gaming.

If anything, it shows that 'AAA title' is a sliding scale.
What I think would be a better metric is to take the best-selling X titles currently, then see what percentage of them is available on linux.
Let's take this top 10 from February 2017 for example:
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/top-10-best … r/1100-6448796/
1) For honor: No linux
2) Resident Evil 7: Biohazard: No linux
3) Grand Theft Auto V: No linux
4) NBA 2K17: No linux
5) Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare: No linux
6) Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Siege: No linux
7) Madden NFL17: No linux
8 ) Battlefield 1: No linux
9) Nioh: No linux
10) Overwatch: No linux

So that's a 0% score for linux in the top 10 there.
The only game not available on Windows is Nioh, since that is a PS4-exclusive title.

I rest my case.

As for Steam HWSurvey... are we looking at the same stats? Because I see that 0.76% of all Steam users are using linux (and it actually went down, -0.01%). How is that not irrelevant?
Even OS X has 2.99%, so your claim that linux is as relevant as OS X for gaming is also hugely inflated.

Linux will never really hit main stream, it doesn't come on prebuilt OEM computers at your local best buy or wal-mart, and OS installs scare most people even alot of PC gamers have their computers worked on by small shops because they are scared of breaking it, and that is why Linux will remain an after thought.

Well im working on a Vista system now.

Phenom X3 8400
8gb DDR2 800
ASUS M4N78 Pro
EVGA 8800GTS 512

candle_86 wrote:

Linux will never really hit main stream, it doesn't come on prebuilt OEM computers at your local best buy or wal-mart, and OS installs scare most people even alot of PC gamers have their computers worked on by small shops because they are scared of breaking it, and that is why Linux will remain an after thought.

Actually, it does. Lots of handheld computers with built in communications systems from vendors like Samsung, HTC, LG, Huawei, etc.

Ultimately, I think this might be the answer. I believe that the bulk of users could have their computing needs satisfied with an appliance type system, although efforts thus far have been somewhat half hearted with the exception of Android. Unlimited flexibility is fine for power users and tinkerers, but a prepackaged system might be all that's needed for the average joe and prevent a great deal of confusion.

gdjacobs wrote:

candle_86 wrote:

Linux will never really hit main stream, it doesn't come on prebuilt OEM computers at your local best buy or wal-mart, and OS installs scare most people even alot of PC gamers have their computers worked on by small shops because they are scared of breaking it, and that is why Linux will remain an after thought.

Actually, it does. Lots of handheld computers with built in communications systems from vendors like Samsung, HTC, LG, Huawei, etc.

Ultimately, I think this might be the answer. I believe that the bulk of users could have their computing needs satisfied with an appliance type system, although efforts thus far have been somewhat half hearted with the exception of Android. Unlimited flexibility is fine for power users and tinkerers, but a prepackaged system might be all that's needed for the average joe and prevent a great deal of confusion.

Sure but it would need to look like and work like windows as well so as not to overwhelm and confuse the average joe, someone tried that Lindows, it flopped

Lindows was a nothing even within the Linux desktop world, but I'll bite anyway. Regardless of the merits or faults of Lindows, it had no control over the hardware platform and had no OEM buy in, so adoption was going to be limited to those who were themselves willing or knew others willing to install it, even if it fully supported all the software and tasks they wanted to do (it did not).

Android works because the hardware manufacturers ship their product with the platform installed, the majority of the underlying complexity remains unknown to the end user, and it is such a widely accepted platform that it can be used to do pretty much anything expected of a tablet or smart phone. Chromebooks and Chromeboxes have also carved out a niche for themselves, although they still face the juggernaut of Microsoft Office in the business world.

Finally, a little secret for you. Most Average Joes are confused by Windows, too.

Yes but they know what the start button is

Not always, no. I've had to tell people where the space bar is.

gdjacobs wrote:

Actually, it does. Lots of handheld computers with built in communications systems from vendors like Samsung, HTC, LG, Huawei, etc.

Ultimately, I think this might be the answer. I believe that the bulk of users could have their computing needs satisfied with an appliance type system, although efforts thus far have been somewhat half hearted with the exception of Android. Unlimited flexibility is fine for power users and tinkerers, but a prepackaged system might be all that's needed for the average joe and prevent a great deal of confusion.

I guess that's exactly the problem:
Success-stories for linux are either in an appliance-like application (embedded systems like TiVo or Android devices), or for highly skilled professionals (servers/workstations).
In the former, the user interface does not come from a standard linux distribution, but is custom-made by the vendor. In the latter, the user interface doesn't have to be all that user-friendly.

The difficult use-case is where Windows and OS X are most successful: Making the generic system usable for everyday tasks for non-trained people.
It's interesting that OS X tends to go for more of a 'prepackaged' solution, hiding the complex parts from the end-user, where Windows allows you to dig in deeper more easily, but also sometimes requires you to know/do a bit more for simple tasks. Apparently they still manage to hit some kind of 'sweet spot' of complexity, which linux has never achieved.

Scali wrote:

The difficult use-case is where Windows and OS X are most successful: Making the generic system usable for everyday tasks for non-trained people.
It's interesting that OS X tends to go for more of a 'prepackaged' solution, hiding the complex parts from the end-user, where Windows allows you to dig in deeper more easily, but also sometimes requires you to know/do a bit more for simple tasks. Apparently they still manage to hit some kind of 'sweet spot' of complexity, which linux has never achieved.

In both cases, there's also a massive support industry built up around their products.

gdjacobs wrote:

Scali wrote:

The difficult use-case is where Windows and OS X are most successful: Making the generic system usable for everyday tasks for non-trained people.
It's interesting that OS X tends to go for more of a 'prepackaged' solution, hiding the complex parts from the end-user, where Windows allows you to dig in deeper more easily, but also sometimes requires you to know/do a bit more for simple tasks. Apparently they still manage to hit some kind of 'sweet spot' of complexity, which linux has never achieved.

In both cases, there's also a massive support industry built up around their products.

As well as massive corporations developing the thing as opposed to the GNU/Linux 'community'.

appiah4 wrote:

As well as massive corporations developing the thing as opposed to the GNU/Linux 'community'.

Yet they haven't solved the problem of how to insulate users from their lack of technical savvy.